Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the governing body of Marion County approved an amendment to the county comprehensive plan in 1994, allowing Morse Bros. Inc. to extend a mineral and aggregate overlay zone onto a 490-acre site, which includes areas beyond those covered by a previous 1979 permit. Petitioners challenged this decision, asserting that state statutes required a conditional use permit for the 1994 mining operations and that the decision violated ORS 215.301 by improperly expanding batching operations near a vineyard. The Land Use Board of Appeals largely upheld the county's decision. The court found no statutory requirement for a conditional use permit and concluded that the 1994 decision did not invalidate the grandfathered status of the existing operations under ORS 215.301. Furthermore, the court determined that petitioners failed to provide evidence that the increased mining area would intensify the use of the existing batch plant. The court affirmed the decision, finding no errors in the county's findings and concluding that the decision complied with applicable statutes.
Legal Issues Addressed
Conditional Use Permit Requirementsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that no statutory requirement exists for a conditional use permit for the mining operations authorized in 1994.
Reasoning: The court found no statutory requirement for a conditional use permit or additional site-specific analysis beyond what was provided.
Grandfathered Status under ORS 215.301subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The petitioners' argument that the 1994 decision invalidates the grandfathered status of the batching and blending operations was rejected.
Reasoning: The petitioners also contend that the 1994 decision effectively expands the batching and blending operations allowed under the 1979 permit, which would invalidate their grandfathered status under ORS 215.301.
Impact of Authorized Operations on Existing Facilitiessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that the petitioners failed to demonstrate that the authorized mining operations would intensify the use of the existing batch plant.
Reasoning: Petitioners fail to provide evidence supporting their claim that the county's decision leads to intensified use of the batch plant and do not identify any errors in the county's findings regarding the relationship between the newly authorized mining activities and the existing batch plant operation.